We touched on this a bit in yesterday’s Green News Report, but this new “I’m not a scientist” tactic now emerging from Republicans, as played most recently by Speaker John Boehner, is noteworthy enough — and cowardly enough…and purposely deceptive enough — to look at just a bit closer.
It’s a fairly clever new ruse to avoid what folks like Boehner know to be absolutely true, but which, for a number of reasons, they’re not allowed to say outloud anymore.
New York’s Jonathon Chait helps kick this off…
This particular demurral seems to be in vogue for the Grand Old Party. Florida governor Rick Scott (“I’m not a scientist”) and Senator Marco Rubio (“I’m not a scientist. I’m not qualified to make that decision.”) have both held up their lack of scientific training as a reason to withhold judgment on anthropogenic global warming.
It’s a strange form of reasoning. Very few of us are scientists, which is exactly why we tend to defer to scientific judgment. It might make sense to question expert consensus in a field where you are an expert, but if you know very little about it, you probably want to just go along with what the experts think. Scientists do, in fact, have a nearly unanimous view of anthropogenic global warming. Scientists likewise believe that chugging Liquid Drano is bad for your health, which is why, precisely because of my lack of scientific training, I hold off on the Drano Cocktails.
Chait goes on to argue that the newest GOP “I”m not a scientist” line of denialism is a swell way to not have to say out loud what people smart enough to know better, like Boehner, know to be the truth when it comes to global warming, while avoiding the wrath of the real “kooks” in their party. “After all, the Glenn Becks, George Wills, and Wall Street Journal editorial page columnists of the world are out there fighting the good denier fight, and they don’t want to be undercut by their fellow Republicans,” writes Chait.
He then concludes this way:
That’s a fairly accurate description of the new and immoral GOP position on the matter.
The important thing to remember here, as we also discussed on GNR yesterday, is that none of this actually has anything to do with doubts about the science of global warming. The only substantive “doubts” about it are how horrible it will be, and how fast, and what to do to help mitigate the worst effects of it on humanity.
The “global warming debate”, such as it’s described by CNN and others who like to pretend there is one, is only about the action that must be taken to mitigate it now, or whether we should simply wait to take such action until it’s far too late to do much about it. Yes, according to the scientists there are tipping points in the not-at-all-distant future, after which it will be far too late to turn back.
The real concern from deniers then (at least those like Boehner and the fossil fuel companies, who know there’s no real question about the science — as opposed to their minions that they’ve played for stooges), is only about the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry. It’s not about “the economy”, as you’ll also begin hearing more and more — as Boehner, by way of example, tried to pretend that any proposal to do anything about it “involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs” — because there are plenty of long and short-term economic gains to be had from moving to a world of clean, renewable energy.
The pretend “debate”, in truth, is really only about the handful of folks who profit off of the oil, coal and gas extraction industries, and the personal pain they would like to avoid in cutting into a single cent of the most profitable industry the world has ever known.
It’s not about a “hoax” or “bad science”. It’s not about “lining Al Gore’s pocket”. It’s about a few very very rich men who don’t want to lose any of their future riches.
That’s it. There’s no more to it. It’s action to save humanity versus a loss of profits for a handful of very wealthy people. There’s no real debate about science or the economy or anything else. It’s about the folks who run Big Carbon hoping to remain as absolutely profitable as long as humanly possible, no matter the ultimate cost to our nation, the world, and actual humanity.
At this point I think we’ve already passed some tipping points. For instance it looks like 10 or 20 feet of sea level rise is probably unavoidable and it’s only a matter of how long it takes. My guess is less than 200 years for 20 feet of SLR.
I meant to say “Less than 200 years for 10 feet of SLR.”
David Werth @2,
That is a safe bet … so is 20 ft. … and so is 30 ft. IMO. The full capacity is 263.5 feet should all the ice melt.
Chait and Brad read the GOP’s cultural amygdala quite well (“immoral”).
Nicely done, Brad.
I find it an incredible embarassment to be a citizen of a nation which once valued education and intelligence in sufficient quantity to work out how to send men to the Moon and bring them back alive.
Today, if Apollo 13 were to explode in space, could we be certain that there remains enough education and intelligence to prevent the death of the astronauts? I say no, for Challenger and Columbia exhibit the triumph of Know-Nothingism over science and truth.
Given that just about every estimate of how soon bad things will start happening due to climate change has been too conservative, and those changes accelerate every time another study is released, it’s very possible that it’s going to be “surf’s up” in Orlando in the lifetimes of many reading this.
I’m not qualified to debate the validity of this article. I’m not a journalist.
The ignorance of climate change deniers just adds more credibility to Neil deGrasse Tysons idea that we may have already been visited by intelligent space beings who left not finding any intelligent life hear on earth.
“here”
Boehner is a flatulence specialist, in terms of the affect cow farts have on the global climate system, and has spoken publicly about it.
However, his papers on flatulence have not passed peer review yet.
Everytime I see that stupid clip of Boehner, I just want to shout out, “Can you count?” If you ask 100 climate scientists, only 3 of them will deny global warming. This was beautifully demonstrated by John Oliver’s Sunday show on HBO.
No one seems to have noticed that Congresspersons (including Mr. Boehner) are all allowed a generous enough budget for staff that they could easily employ one or two scientifically literate advisers to help them understand the science behind AGW. Not only that, but it also stands to reason that Mr. Boehner could ask for a briefing on this subject by experts at any of Ohio’s great universities – at minimal or no cost whatsoever.
In so many words then, all Mr. Boehner is saying is that he is ignorant about the facts behind what is perhaps the most seminal issue of our time, and he won’t lift a finger to do anything about it.
That’s a Hell of a unique political position to try to fit into a political slogan: “Re-elect John Boehner. He’s ignorant and he intends to stay that way!”
The repugs are just commin’ off their wheels — only sham elections propped up by billionaires keepts the relevant (along with a corrupt mainstream media).
Take paul ryan, for instance — now he is telling everyone that will listen that people frequently mistake him for anthony weiner’s penis!
I am sure this builds momentum for a presidential run, right?
Only in crazy wing-nut land.
That photo of Boehner reminds me of the ubiquitous and creepy Good Sam Club stickers:
(I can’t help it, it just does).